commerce_category_landscape

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive hints, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds useful context about JWT/tenant/company scoping and routing through the dispatcher. However, it does not explain what side effects or state changes `category_landscape` may produce, leaving the destructiveHint=true uninterpreted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by scope context and an Args section. Every sentence contributes. It could include one concrete example without being verbose, but as written it is efficiently structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the generic dispatcher nature and two free-form parameters, the description is under-specified for correct invocation. An agent cannot tell what `category_landscape` actually does, what success looks like, what kinds of objectives are valid, or what structured inputs are expected. The output schema exists, but that does not compensate for the lack of domain semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaning to `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional structured JSON string, which is helpful but minimal. It does not explain what keys or shapes `inputs` should contain, what a good `message` looks like, or how the two parameters interact.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the target action (`category_landscape`), the domain (commerce), and the mechanism (domain-agent dispatcher). It is not a tautology and is more specific than the bare tool name, though it does not differentiate from other commerce landscape/analysis siblings like `commerce_pricing_landscape` or `commerce_trend_synthesis`.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus the hundreds of sibling tools, including closely related commerce domain actions. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness from the action name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.